Inslee backs off water-quality standards; his next move is unclear

With a key deadline approaching next week, Gov. Jay Inslee
decided today that he will not move forward on new water-quality
standards at this time.

The governor had hoped that the Legislature would approve his
plan to track down and eliminate sources of nonpoint pollution, the
kind that often gets into our waterways via stormwater. The
Democratic-controlled House approved a revised proposal for
chemical action plans
(HB 1472), which Inslee said he could support. But, in the end,
the Republican-controlled Senate failed to act on the bill.

“Without this legislation, we lack the necessary broad approach
to protecting our water in a way that advances human, environmental
and economic health,” Inslee said in a
news release issued today. “The lack of legislative action is
disappointing and forces us to reassess our approach.”

Environmental advocates and tribal officials have called for
stronger water-quality standards. Such standards, if approved,
could require industrial facilities and sewage-treatment plants to
extensively upgrade their systems to remove more pollutants from
their effluent.

Inslee and his supporters have argued that many of the
pollutants of greatest concern don’t come from industrial and
municipal discharges. Rather they come from “the small-but-steady
release of chemicals in everyday products – brakes on vehicles,
flame retardants in furniture, softeners in plastics, and metals in
roofing materials,” according to the news release.

That’s why Inslee has pushed for the more comprehensive approach
of dealing with the most troublesome chemicals, many of which are
not even regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. (Inslee
news release, July 9, 2014.)

Water-quality standards actually apply to streams and bodies of
water. Comparing results from water samples with numerical
standards tells us whether the waters are polluted or clean enough
to protect public health. The numerical standards become a starting
point for permitting any discharge through pipes, although
stormwater pipes are generally not regulated.

I have followed this story now for quite some time. The latest
related post
two weeks ago in Water Ways covers the overall issue and
includes links to previous stories.

It isn’t clear what the next move will be. The news release says
the governor has “directed the state Department of Ecology to
reconsider its draft clean water rules while he and the agency
assess options on how best to assure protection for the health of
Washington’s people, fish and economy.”

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is developing new
standards for Washington state. If the state fails to act or fails
to protect public health, as determined by the EPA, then the
federal agency could impose its standards on the state. Proposed
EPA standards, like state standards, must undergo a rigorous
review, including public comments and probably public hearings.

“We believe it’s important to have human health criteria in
place that are protective for everybody in Washington, including
high consumers of fish such as members of tribal communities. In
terms of who writes the standards, EPA continues to prefer and
support Washington’s development of revised water quality standards
that we can approve. In the meantime, we are proceeding consistent
with our commitment to work on a federal proposal for Washington,
but will pause that work to review and act upon a state submittal,
should we receive one.”

Washington Department of Ecology, which enforces the Clean Water
Act for Washington state, was planning to approve the new standards
by next Thursday. But under Inslee’s latest order that will not
happen. If the rule is revised, it must undergo a new public review
process.

More than 1,600 comments were received on the proposed
standards, which are not likely to be approved in their current
form. Most of the comments related to the higher cancer risk level
chosen by Ecology and the governor. Cancer risk is one factor in
calculating the water-quality standards, along with a
fish-consumption rate, chemical-toxicity factor and others.